<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">

<rfc category="std" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-04" obsoletes="8229">

<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>

<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="no"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>

    <front>
        <title abbrev="TCP Encapsulation of IKE and IPsec Packets">TCP Encapsulation of IKE and IPsec Packets</title>
        <author initials='V.' surname="Smyslov" fullname='Valery Smyslov'>
            <organization>ELVIS-PLUS</organization>
            <address>
                <postal>
                    <street>PO Box 81</street>
                    <city>Moscow (Zelenograd)</city>
                    <code>124460</code>
                    <country>Russian Federation</country>
                </postal>
                <phone>+7 495 276 0211</phone>
                <email>svan@elvis.ru</email>
            </address>
        </author>
        <author fullname="Tommy Pauly" initials="T." surname="Pauly">
            <organization>Apple Inc.</organization>
            <address>
                <postal>
                    <street>1 Infinite Loop</street>
                    <city>Cupertino, California  95014</city>
                    <country>United States of America</country>
                </postal>
                <email>tpauly@apple.com</email>
            </address>
        </author>
        <date/>

        <!--
        <keyword></keyword>
        -->

      <abstract>
        <t> This document describes a method to transport Internet Key Exchange
        Protocol (IKE) and IPsec packets over a TCP connection for traversing
        network middleboxes that may block IKE negotiation over UDP.  This
        method, referred to as "TCP encapsulation", involves sending both IKE
        packets for Security Association establishment and Encapsulating
        Security Payload (ESP) packets over a TCP connection.  This method is
        intended to be used as a fallback option when IKE cannot be
        negotiated over UDP.
        </t>

        <t>TCP encapsulation for IKE and IPsec was defined in RFC 8229.
        This document updates the specification for TCP encapsulation by including
        additional clarifications obtained during implementation and deployment
        of this method. This documents obsoletes RFC 8229.
        </t>
	  </abstract>
    </front>

    <middle>
      <section title="Introduction" anchor="sect-1">
        <t> The Internet Key Exchange Protocol version 2 (IKEv2) <xref target="RFC7296"/> is a
        protocol for establishing IPsec Security Associations (SAs), using
        IKE messages over UDP for control traffic, and using Encapsulating
        Security Payload (ESP) <xref target="RFC4303"/> messages for encrypted data traffic.
        Many network middleboxes that filter traffic on public hotspots block
        all UDP traffic, including IKE and IPsec, but allow TCP connections
        through because they appear to be web traffic.  Devices on these
        networks that need to use IPsec (to access private enterprise
        networks, to route Voice over IP calls to carrier networks, or
        because of security policies) are unable to establish IPsec SAs.
        This document defines a method for encapsulating IKE control messages
        as well as IPsec data messages within a TCP connection.
        </t>

        <t> Using TCP as a transport for IPsec packets adds a third option to the
        list of traditional IPsec transports:
        </t>

        <t><list style="numbers">
          <t>Direct.  Currently, IKE negotiations begin over UDP port 500.  If
          no Network Address Translation (NAT) device is detected between
          the Initiator and the Responder, then subsequent IKE packets are
          sent over UDP port 500, and IPsec data packets are sent
          using ESP.</t>

          <t>UDP Encapsulation <xref target="RFC3948"/>.  If a NAT is detected between the
          Initiator and the Responder, then subsequent IKE packets are sent
          over UDP port 4500 with four bytes of zero at the start of the
          UDP payload, and ESP packets are sent out over UDP port 4500.
          Some peers default to using UDP encapsulation even when no NAT is
          detected on the path, as some middleboxes do not support IP
          protocols other than TCP and UDP.</t>

          <t>TCP Encapsulation.  If the other two methods are not available or
          appropriate, IKE negotiation packets as well as ESP packets can
          be sent over a single TCP connection to the peer.</t>
	    </list>
        </t>

        <t> Direct use of ESP or UDP encapsulation should be preferred by
        IKE implementations due to performance concerns when using
        TCP encapsulation (<xref target="perf"/>).  Most implementations should use
        TCP encapsulation only on networks where negotiation over UDP has
        been attempted without receiving responses from the peer or if a
        network is known to not support UDP.</t>

        <section title="Prior Work and Motivation" anchor="sect-1.1">
          <t> Encapsulating IKE connections within TCP streams is a common approach
          to solve the problem of UDP packets being blocked by network
          middleboxes.  The specific goals of this document are as follows:</t>
                    
          <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>To promote interoperability by defining a standard method of
            framing IKE and ESP messages within TCP streams.</t>
              
            <t>To be compatible with the current IKEv2 standard without requiring
            modifications or extensions.</t>
              
            <t>To use IKE over UDP by default to avoid the overhead of other
            alternatives that always rely on TCP or Transport Layer Security
            (TLS) <xref target="RFC5246"/><xref target="RFC8446"/>.</t>
              
          </list>
          </t>

          <t>Some previous alternatives include:</t>
                    
          <t><list style="hanging" hangIndent="3">
            <t hangText="Cellular Network Access">
            <vspace blankLines="0"/>
            Interworking Wireless LAN (IWLAN) uses IKEv2 to create secure
            connections to cellular carrier networks for making voice calls
            and accessing other network services over Wi-Fi networks. 3GPP has
            recommended that IKEv2 and ESP packets be sent within a TLS
            connection to be able to establish connections on restrictive
            networks.
            </t>
                    
            <t hangText="ISAKMP over TCP">
            <vspace blankLines="0"/>
            Various non-standard extensions to the Internet Security
            Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP) have been
            deployed that send IPsec traffic over TCP or TCP-like packets.
            </t>
              
            <t hangText="Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) VPNs">
            <vspace blankLines="0"/>
            Many proprietary VPN solutions use a combination of TLS and IPsec
            in order to provide reliability.  These often run on TCP port 443.
            </t>
              
            <t hangText="IKEv2 over TCP">
            <vspace blankLines="0"/>
            IKEv2 over TCP as described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-ipsecme-ike-tcp"/> is used to avoid UDP
            fragmentation.
            </t>
              
          </list>

          TCP encapsulation for IKE and IPsec was defined in <xref target="RFC8229" />.
          This document updates the specification for TCP encapsulation by including
          additional clarifications obtained during implementation and deployment
          of this method.
          </t>

        </section>
      </section>

      <section anchor="mustshouldmay" title="Terminology and Notation">
        <t> This document distinguishes between the IKE peer that initiates TCP
        connections to be used for TCP encapsulation and the roles of
        Initiator and Responder for particular IKE messages.  During the
        course of IKE exchanges, the role of IKE Initiator and Responder may
        swap for a given SA (as with IKE SA rekeys), while the Initiator of
        the TCP connection is still responsible for tearing down the TCP
        connection and re-establishing it if necessary.  For this reason,
        this document will use the term "TCP Originator" to indicate the IKE
        peer that initiates TCP connections.  The peer that receives TCP
        connections will be referred to as the "TCP Responder".  If an IKE SA
        is rekeyed one or more times, the TCP Originator MUST remain the peer
        that originally initiated the first IKE SA.
        </t>

        <t> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", 
        "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted 
        as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119" /> <xref target="RFC8174" /> when, and only when, 
        they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
        </t>
      </section>


      <section title="Configuration" anchor="sect-2">
        <t>One of the main reasons to use TCP encapsulation is that UDP traffic
        may be entirely blocked on a network.  Because of this, support for
        TCP encapsulation is not specifically negotiated in the IKE exchange.
        Instead, support for TCP encapsulation must be pre-configured on both
        the TCP Originator and the TCP Responder.</t>

        <t>Implementations MUST support TCP encapsulation on TCP port 4500,
        which is reserved for IPsec NAT traversal.</t>

        <t>Beyond a flag indicating support for TCP encapsulation, the
        configuration for each peer can include the following optional
        parameters:</t>

        <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>Alternate TCP ports on which the specific TCP Responder listens
          for incoming connections.  Note that the TCP Originator may
          initiate TCP connections to the TCP Responder from any local port.</t>
  
          <t>An extra framing protocol to use on top of TCP to further
          encapsulate the stream of IKE and IPsec packets.  See <xref target="tls" />
          for a detailed discussion.</t>
        </list>
        </t>

        <t>Since TCP encapsulation of IKE and IPsec packets adds overhead and
        has potential performance trade-offs compared to direct or
        UDP-encapsulated SAs (as described in <xref target="perf"/>), implementations
        SHOULD prefer ESP direct or UDP-encapsulated SAs over
        TCP-encapsulated SAs when possible.
        </t>

      </section>

      <section title="TCP-Encapsulated Header Formats" anchor="sect-3">
        <t>Like UDP encapsulation, TCP encapsulation uses the first four bytes
        of a message to differentiate IKE and ESP messages.  TCP
        encapsulation also adds a 16-bit Length field that precedes every message
        to define the boundaries of messages within a stream.  
		The value in this field is equal to the length of the original message
		plus the length of the field itself, in octets.  If the first 32 bits
		of the message are zeros (a non-ESP marker), then the contents comprise an
        IKE message.  Otherwise, the contents comprise an ESP message.
        Authentication Header (AH) messages are not supported for TCP
        encapsulation.
        </t>
  
        <t>Although a TCP stream may be able to send very long messages,
        implementations SHOULD limit message lengths to typical UDP datagram
        ESP payload lengths.  The maximum message length is used as the
        effective MTU for connections that are being encrypted using ESP, so
        the maximum message length will influence characteristics of inner
        connections, such as the TCP Maximum Segment Size (MSS).
		</t>
  
        <t>Note that this method of encapsulation will also work for placing IKE
        and ESP messages within any protocol that presents a stream
        abstraction, beyond TCP.
        </t>

        <section title="TCP-Encapsulated IKE Header Format" anchor="sect-3.1">
          <figure anchor="f-1"><artwork><![CDATA[
                     1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                |            Length             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                         Non-ESP Marker                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
~                      IKE header [RFC7296]                     ~
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          ]]></artwork>
          </figure>

          <t> The IKE header is preceded by a 16-bit Length field in network byte
          order that specifies the length of the IKE message (including the
          non-ESP marker) within the TCP stream.  As with IKE over UDP
          port 4500, a zeroed 32-bit non-ESP marker is inserted before the
          start of the IKE header in order to differentiate the traffic from
          ESP traffic between the same addresses and ports.
          </t>

          <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>Length (2 octets, unsigned integer) - Length of the IKE packet,
            including the Length field and non-ESP marker. The value in the Length
			field MUST NOT be 0 or 1. The receiver MUST treat these values as
			fatal errors and MUST close TCP connection.
            </t>

	      </list>
          </t>

        </section>

        <section title="TCP-Encapsulated ESP Header Format" anchor="sect-3.2">
          <figure anchor="f-2"><artwork><![CDATA[
                     1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                |            Length             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
~                     ESP header [RFC4303]                      ~
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>

          <t>The ESP header is preceded by a 16-bit Length field in network byte
          order that specifies the length of the ESP packet within the TCP
          stream.</t>

          <t>The Security Parameter Index (SPI) field <xref target="RFC7296"/> in the ESP header
          MUST NOT be a zero value.</t>

          <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>Length (2 octets, unsigned integer) - Length of the ESP packet,
            including the Length field. The value in the Length
			field MUST NOT be 0 or 1. The receiver MUST treat these values as
			fatal errors and MUST close TCP connection.</t>

	      </list>
          </t>

        </section>
	  </section>

	  <section title="TCP-Encapsulated Stream Prefix" anchor="sect-4">
        <t>Each stream of bytes used for IKE and IPsec encapsulation MUST begin
        with a fixed sequence of six bytes as a magic value, containing the
        characters "IKETCP" as ASCII values.  This value is intended to
        identify and validate that the TCP connection is being used for TCP
        encapsulation as defined in this document, to avoid conflicts with
        the prevalence of previous non-standard protocols that used TCP
        port 4500.  This value is only sent once, by the TCP Originator only,
        at the beginning of any stream of IKE and ESP messages.
        </t>
        
        <t>If other framing protocols are used within TCP to further encapsulate
        or encrypt the stream of IKE and ESP messages, the stream prefix must
        be at the start of the TCP Originator's IKE and ESP message stream
        within the added protocol layer (<xref target="tls" />).  Although some framing
        protocols do support negotiating inner protocols, the stream prefix
        should always be used in order for implementations to be as generic
        as possible and not rely on other framing protocols on top of TCP.
        </t>

        <figure anchor="f-3"><artwork><![CDATA[
             0      1      2      3      4      5
            +------+------+------+------+------+------+
            | 0x49 | 0x4b | 0x45 | 0x54 | 0x43 | 0x50 |
            +------+------+------+------+------+------+
         ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </section>

      <section title="Applicability" anchor="sect-5">
        <t>TCP encapsulation is applicable only when it has been configured to
        be used with specific IKE peers.  If a Responder is configured to use
        TCP encapsulation, it MUST listen on the configured port(s) in case
        any peers will initiate new IKE sessions.  Initiators MAY use TCP
        encapsulation for any IKE session to a peer that is configured to
        support TCP encapsulation, although it is recommended that Initiators
        should only use TCP encapsulation when traffic over UDP is blocked.
        </t>
        
        <t>Since the support of TCP encapsulation is a configured property, not
        a negotiated one, it is recommended that if there are multiple IKE
        endpoints representing a single peer (such as multiple machines with
        different IP addresses when connecting by Fully Qualified Domain
        Name, or endpoints used with IKE redirection), all of the endpoints
        equally support TCP encapsulation.
        </t>
        
        <t>If TCP encapsulation is being used for a specific IKE SA, all
        messages for that IKE SA and its Child SAs MUST be sent over a TCP
        connection until the SA is deleted or IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming
        (MOBIKE) is used to change the SA endpoints and/or the encapsulation
        protocol.  See <xref target="sect-8"/> for more details on using MOBIKE to
        transition between encapsulation modes.
        </t>

        <section title="Recommended Fallback from UDP" anchor="sect-5.1">
          <t>Since UDP is the preferred method of transport for IKE messages,
          implementations that use TCP encapsulation should have an algorithm
          for deciding when to use TCP after determining that UDP is unusable.
          If an Initiator implementation has no prior knowledge about the
          network it is on and the status of UDP on that network, it SHOULD
          always attempt to negotiate IKE over UDP first.  IKEv2 defines how to
          use retransmission timers with IKE messages and, specifically,
          IKE_SA_INIT messages <xref target="RFC7296"/>.  Generally, this means that the
          implementation will define a frequency of retransmission and the
          maximum number of retransmissions allowed before marking the IKE SA
          as failed.  An implementation can attempt negotiation over TCP once
          it has hit the maximum retransmissions over UDP, or slightly before
          to reduce connection setup delays.  It is recommended that the
          initial message over UDP be retransmitted at least once before
          falling back to TCP, unless the Initiator knows beforehand that the
          network is likely to block UDP.
          </t>

          <t>When switching from UDP to TCP, a new IKE_SA_INIT exchange MUST be
          initiated with new Initiator's SPI and with recalculated content of
          NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP notification.
          </t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="Using TCP Encapsulation" anchor="tcp-encap">
        <section title="Connection Establishment and Teardown" anchor="sect-6">
          <t>When the IKE Initiator uses TCP encapsulation, it will initiate a TCP
          connection to the Responder using the configured TCP port.  The first
          bytes sent on the stream MUST be the stream prefix value (<xref target="sect-4"/>).
          After this prefix, encapsulated IKE messages will negotiate the IKE
          SA and initial Child SA <xref target="RFC7296"/>.  After this point, both
          encapsulated IKE (<xref target="f-1" />) and ESP (<xref target="f-2" />)
           messages will be sent over the TCP connection.  The TCP Responder MUST wait for the entire
          stream prefix to be received on the stream before trying to parse out
          any IKE or ESP messages.  The stream prefix is sent only once, and
          only by the TCP Originator.
          </t>

          <t>In order to close an IKE session, either the Initiator or Responder
          SHOULD gracefully tear down IKE SAs with DELETE payloads.  Once the
          SA has been deleted, the TCP Originator SHOULD close the TCP
          connection if it does not intend to use the connection for another
          IKE session to the TCP Responder.  If the TCP connection is no more 
          associated with any active IKE SA, the TCP Responder MAY close the connection 
          to clean up resources if TCP Originator didn't close it within some reasonable period of time.
          </t>

          <t>An unexpected FIN or a TCP Reset on the TCP connection may indicate a
          loss of connectivity, an attack, or some other error.  If a DELETE
          payload has not been sent, both sides SHOULD maintain the state for
          their SAs for the standard lifetime or timeout period.  The TCP
          Originator is responsible for re-establishing the TCP connection if
          it is torn down for any unexpected reason.  Since new TCP connections
          may use different ports due to NAT mappings or local port allocations
          changing, the TCP Responder MUST allow packets for existing SAs to be
          received from new source ports.
          </t>

          <t>A peer MUST discard a partially received message due to a broken
          connection.
          </t>

          <t>Whenever the TCP Originator opens a new TCP connection to be used for
          an existing IKE SA, it MUST send the stream prefix first, before any
          IKE or ESP messages.  This follows the same behavior as the initial
          TCP connection.
          </t>

          <t>If a TCP connection is being used to resume a previous IKE session,
          the TCP Responder can recognize the session using either the IKE SPI
          from an encapsulated IKE message or the ESP SPI from an encapsulated
          ESP message.  If the session had been fully established previously,
          it is suggested that the TCP Originator send an UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES
          message if MOBIKE is supported, or an informational message (a
          keep-alive) otherwise.
          </t>

          <t>The TCP Responder MUST NOT accept any messages for the existing IKE
          session on a new incoming connection, unless that connection begins
          with the stream prefix.  If either the TCP Originator or TCP
          Responder detects corruption on a connection that was started with a
          valid stream prefix, it SHOULD close the TCP connection.  The
          connection can be determined to be corrupted if there are too many
          subsequent messages that cannot be parsed as valid IKE messages or
          ESP messages with known SPIs, or if the authentication check for an
          ESP message with a known SPI fails.  Implementations SHOULD NOT
          tear down a connection if only a single ESP message has an unknown
          SPI, since the SPI databases may be momentarily out of sync.  If
          there is instead a syntax issue within an IKE message, an
          implementation MUST send the INVALID_SYNTAX notify payload and
          tear down the IKE SA as usual, rather than tearing down the TCP
          connection directly.
          </t>

          <t>A TCP Originator SHOULD only open one TCP connection per IKE SA, over
          which it sends all of the corresponding IKE and ESP messages.  This
          helps ensure that any firewall or NAT mappings allocated for the TCP
          connection apply to all of the traffic associated with the IKE SA
          equally.
          </t>

          <t>Similarly, a TCP Responder SHOULD at any given time send packets for
          an IKE SA and its Child SAs over only one TCP connection.  It SHOULD
          choose the TCP connection on which it last received a valid and
          decryptable IKE or ESP message.  In order to be considered valid for
          choosing a TCP connection, an IKE message must be successfully
          decrypted and authenticated, not be a retransmission of a previously
          received message, and be within the expected window for IKE
          message IDs.  Similarly, an ESP message must pass authentication
          checks and be decrypted, and must not be a replay of a previous
          message.
          </t>

          <t>Since a connection may be broken and a new connection re-established
          by the TCP Originator without the TCP Responder being aware, a TCP
          Responder SHOULD accept receiving IKE and ESP messages on both old
          and new connections until the old connection is closed by the TCP
          Originator.  A TCP Responder MAY close a TCP connection that it
          perceives as idle and extraneous (one previously used for IKE and ESP
          messages that has been replaced by a new connection).
          </t>

          <t>Multiple IKE SAs MUST NOT share a single TCP connection, unless one
          is a rekey of an existing IKE SA, in which case there will
          temporarily be two IKE SAs on the same TCP connection.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="Retransmissions" anchor="retr" >
          <t>Section 2.1 of <xref target="RFC7296" /> describes how IKEv2 deals with the unreliability
          of the UDP protocol.  In brief, the exchange Initiator is responsible for
          retransmissions and must retransmit requests message until response
          message is received.  If no reply is received after several
          retransmissions, the SA is deleted.  The Responder never initiates retransmission,
          but must send a response message again in case it receives a retransmitted request.
          </t>

          <t>When IKEv2 uses a reliable transport protocol, like TCP, the retransmission rules are as follows:
          <list style="symbols" >
            <t>The exchange Initiator SHOULD NOT retransmit request message; if
            no response is received within some reasonable period of time, the
            IKE SA is deleted.
            </t>
            <t>If a new TCP connection for the IKE SA is established while the exchange
            Initiator is waiting for a response, the Initiator MUST
            retransmit its request over this connection and continue to wait for a response.
            </t>
            <t>The exchange Responder does not change its behavior, but acts as
			described in Section 2.1 of <xref target="RFC7296" />.
            </t>
          </list>
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="Cookies and Puzzles" anchor="cookie-puzzle" >
          <t>IKEv2 provides a DoS attack protection mechanism through Cookies, which
          is described in Section 2.6 of <xref target="RFC7296" />.  <xref target="RFC8019" /> extends this
          mechanism for protection against DDoS attacks by means of Client
          Puzzles.  Both mechanisms allow the Responder to avoid keeping state until
          the Initiator proves its IP address is legitimate (and after solving a puzzle if required).
          </t>

          <t>The connection-oriented nature of TCP transport brings additional 
          considerations for using these mechanisms.
          In general, Cookies provide less value in case of TCP encapsulation,
          since by the time a Responder receives the IKE_SA_INIT request, the TCP
          session has already been established and the Initiator's IP address
          has been verified.  Moreover, a TCP/IP stack creates state once
          a TCP SYN packet is received (unless SYN Cookies described in <xref target="RFC4987" />
          are employed), which contradicts the statelessness of IKEv2 Cookies.
          In particular, with TCP, an attacker is able to mount a SYN flooding DoS attack 
          which an IKEv2 Responder cannot prevent using stateless IKEv2 Cookies.
          Thus, when using TCP encapsulation, it makes little sense to send Cookie requests without 
          Puzzles unless the Responder is concerned with a possibility of TCP
          Sequence Number attacks (see <xref target="RFC6528" /> for details). Puzzles, on
		  the other hand, still remain useful (and their use requires using Cookies).
          </t>

          <t>The following considerations are applicable for using Cookie and
          Puzzle mechanisms in case of TCP encapsulation:
          <list style="symbols" >
            <t>the exchange Responder SHOULD NOT request a Cookie, with the
			exception of Puzzles or in rare cases like preventing TCP Sequence
			Number attacks.
            </t>
            <t>if the Responder chooses to send Cookie request (possibly along
            with Puzzle request), then the TCP connection that the IKE_SA_INIT
            request message was received over SHOULD be closed after the Responder sends its reply
            and no repeated requests are received within some short period of time 
            to keep the Responder stateless (see <xref target="tradeoff" />). Note that the Responder MUST NOT 
            include the Initiator's TCP port into the Cookie
			calculation (*), since the Cookie can be returned over a new
			TCP connection with a different port.
            </t>
            <t>the exchange Initiator acts as described in Section 2.6 of
            <xref target="RFC7296" /> and Section 7 of <xref target="RFC8019" />, 
            i.e. using TCP encapsulation doesn't change the Initiator's behavior.
            </t>
          </list>

          (*) Examples of Cookie calculation methods are given in Section 2.6
          of <xref target="RFC7296" /> and in Section 7.1.1.3 of <xref target="RFC8019" /> 
          and they don't include transport protocol ports.  However these examples are given
          for illustrative purposes, since Cookie generation algorithm is a
          local matter and some implementations might include port numbers,
          that won't work with TCP encapsulation. Note also that these 
          examples include the Initiator's IP address in Cookie calculation.
          In general this address may change between two initial requests (with and without Cookies).
          This may happen due to NATs, since NATs have more freedom to change change source IP addresses for new
          TCP connections than for UDP. In such cases cookie verification might fail.
          </t>

          <section title="Statelessness versus Delay of SA Establishment" anchor="tradeoff" >
            <t>
            There is a trade-off in choosing the period of time after which
            TCP connection is closed. If it is too short, then the proper Initiator
            which repeats its request would need to re-establish the TCP connection
            introducing additional delay. On the other hand, if it is too long, then 
            the Responder's resources would be wasted in case the Initiator never comes back.
            This document doesn't specify the duration of time, because it doesn't affect interoperability, 
            but it is believed that 5-10 seconds is a good compromise. Note also, that if the Responder requests 
            the Initiator to solve a puzzle, then the Responder can estimate how long it would take the Initiator 
            to find a solution and adjust the time interval accordingly.
            </t>
          </section>
        </section>

        <section title="Error Handling in IKE_SA_INIT" anchor="errors" >
          <t>Section 2.21.1 of <xref target="RFC7296" /> describes how error notifications
		  are handled in the IKE_SA_INIT exchange.  In particular, it is advised
          that the Initiator should not act immediately after receiving error
          notification and should instead wait some time for valid response,
          since the IKE_SA_INIT messages are completely unauthenticated.  This
          advice does not apply equally in case of TCP encapsulation.  If the
          Initiator receives a response message over TCP, then either this
          message is genuine and was sent by the peer, or the TCP session was
          hijacked and the message is forged. In this latter case, no genuine
          messages from the Responder will be received.
          </t>

          <t>Thus, in case of TCP encapsulation, an Initiator SHOULD NOT wait for
          additional messages in case it receives error notification from the
          Responder in the IKE_SA_INIT exchange.
          </t>

          <t>If in the IKE_SA_INIT exchange the Responder returns an error notification that implies
          a recovery action from the Initiator (such as INVALID_KE_PAYLOAD
          or INVALID_MAJOR_VERSION, see Section 2.21.1 of <xref target="RFC7296" />) 
          then the Responder SHOULD NOT close the TCP connection immediately, in anticipation
          that the Initiator will repeat the request with corrected parameters.
          See also <xref target="cookie-puzzle" />.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="NAT Detection Payloads" anchor="sect-7">
          <t>When negotiating over UDP port 500, IKE_SA_INIT packets include
          NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP and NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP payloads to
          determine if UDP encapsulation of IPsec packets should be used.
          These payloads contain SHA-1 digests of the SPIs, IP addresses, and
          ports as defined in <xref target="RFC7296"/>.  IKE_SA_INIT packets sent on a TCP
          connection SHOULD include these payloads with the same content as
          when sending over UDP and SHOULD use the applicable TCP ports when
          creating and checking the SHA-1 digests.
          </t>

          <t>If a NAT is detected due to the SHA-1 digests not matching the
          expected values, no change should be made for encapsulation of
          subsequent IKE or ESP packets, since TCP encapsulation inherently
          supports NAT traversal. However, for the transport mode IPsec SAs, implementations 
          need to handle TCP and UDP packet checksum fixup during decapsulation, 
          as defined for UDP encapsulation in <xref target="RFC3948"/>.
          Implementations MAY use the information that
          a NAT is present to influence keep-alive timer values.
          </t>

        </section>

        <section title="Keep-Alives and Dead Peer Detection" anchor="sect-10">
          <t>Encapsulating IKE and IPsec inside of a TCP connection can impact the
          strategy that implementations use to detect peer liveness and to
          maintain middlebox port mappings.  Peer liveness should be checked
          using IKE informational packets <xref target="RFC7296"/>.
          </t>

          <t>In general, TCP port mappings are maintained by NATs longer than UDP
          port mappings, so IPsec ESP NAT keep-alives <xref target="RFC3948"/> SHOULD NOT be
          sent when using TCP encapsulation.  Any implementation using TCP
          encapsulation MUST silently drop incoming NAT keep-alive packets
          and not treat them as errors.  NAT keep-alive packets over a
          TCP-encapsulated IPsec connection will be sent as an ESP message with
          a one-octet-long payload with the value 0xFF.
          </t>

          <t>Note that, depending on the configuration of TCP and TLS on the
          connection, TCP keep-alives <xref target="RFC1122"/> and TLS keep-alives <xref target="RFC6520"/>
          may be used.  These MUST NOT be used as indications of IKE peer
          liveness, for which purpose the standard IKEv2 mechanism of exchanging empty INFORMATIONAL messages is used
          (see Section 1.4 of <xref target="RFC7296" />).
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="Implications of TCP Encapsulation on IPsec SA Processing" anchor="ipsec" >
          <t>Using TCP encapsulation affects some aspects of IPsec SA processing.
          <list style="numbers" >
            <t>Section 8.1 of <xref target="RFC4301"/> requires all tunnel mode IPsec SAs to
            be able to copy the Don't Fragment (DF) bit from inner IP header to
            the outer (tunnel) one.  With TCP encapsulation this is generally
            not possible, because TCP/IP stack manages DF bit in the outer IP
            header, and usually the stack ensures that the DF bit is set for TCP
            packets to avoid IP fragmentation.
            </t>

            <t>The other feature that is less applicable with TCP encapsulation is an
            ability to split traffic of different QoS classes into different
            IPsec SAs, created by a single IKE SA.  In this case the
            Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) field is usually copied
            from the inner IP header to the outer (tunnel) one, ensuring that
            IPsec traffic of each SA receives the corresponding level of service.
            With TCP encapsulation all IPsec SAs created by a single IKE SA will
            share a single TCP connection and thus will receive the same level of
            service (see <xref target="perf.3" />).  If this functionality is needed, 
            implementations should create several IKE SAs each over separate TCP connection 
            and assign a corresponding DSCP value to each of them.
            </t>
          </list>
          </t>

          <t>Besides, TCP encapsulation of IPsec packets may have implications
          on performance of the encapsulated traffic. Performance considerations
          are discussed in <xref target="perf" />.
          </t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="Interaction with IKEv2 Extensions" anchor="extensions" >
        <section title="MOBIKE Protocol" anchor="sect-8">
          <t>The MOBIKE protocol, which allows SAs to migrate between IP
          addresses, is defined in <xref target="RFC4555"/>, and <xref target="RFC4621"/> further clarifies
          the details of the protocol. When an IKE session that has negotiated MOBIKE is
          transitioning between networks, the Initiator of the transition may
          switch between using TCP encapsulation, UDP encapsulation, or no
          encapsulation.  Implementations that implement both MOBIKE and TCP
          encapsulation within the same connection configuration 
          MUST support dynamically enabling and disabling TCP
          encapsulation as interfaces change.
          </t>

          <t>When a MOBIKE-enabled Initiator changes networks, the 
          INFORMATIONAL exchange with the UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES notification SHOULD be initiated 
          first over UDP before attempting over TCP.  If there is a response to the
          request sent over UDP, then the ESP packets should be sent directly over IP or over UDP port 4500 
          (depending on if a NAT was detected), regardless of if a connection on a previous
          network was using TCP encapsulation.  If no response is received within a certain period of time after
          several retransmissions, the Initiator ought to change its transport for this exchange from
          UDP to TCP and resend the request message. A new INFORMATIONAL exchange MUST
          NOT be started in this situation. If the Responder only responds to the request sent over TCP, then
          the ESP packets should be sent over the TCP connection, regardless of
          if a connection on a previous network did not use TCP encapsulation.
          </t>

          <t>If the TCP transport was used for the previous network connection, the old TCP
          connection SHOULD be closed by the Initiator once MOBIKE finishes migration 
          to a new connection (either TCP or UDP).
          </t>

          <t>Since switching from UDP to TCP can happen during a single
		  INFORMATIONAL message exchange, the content of the NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP
		  notification will in most cases be incorrect (since UDP and TCP source ports
		  will most likely be different), and the peer may incorrectly detect
		  the presence of a NAT. Section 3.5 of <xref target="RFC4555" /> states that 
          a new INFORMATIONAL exchange with the UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES notify is initiated 
          in case the address (or transport) is changed while waiting for a response.
          </t>

          <t>Section 3.5 of <xref target="RFC4555" /> also states that 
          once an IKE SA is switched to a new IP address, all outstanding requests in this SA 
          are immediately retransmitted using this address. See also <xref target="retr" />.
          </t>

          <t>The MOBIKE protocol defines the NO_NATS_ALLOWED notification that can be
          used to detect the presence of NAT between peer and to refuse to
          communicate in this situation.  In case of TCP the NO_NATS_ALLOWED
          notification SHOULD be ignored because TCP generally has no problems
          with NAT boxes.
          </t>

          <t>Section 3.7 of <xref target="RFC4555"/> describes an additional optional step in the
          process of changing IP addresses called Return Routability Check.  It
          is performed by Responders in order to be sure that the new
          initiator's address is in fact routable.  In case of TCP
          encapsulation this check has little value, since TCP handshake proves
          routability of the TCP Originator's address.  So, in case of TCP
          encapsulation the Return Routability Check SHOULD NOT be performed.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="IKE Redirect" anchor="redirect" >
          <t>A redirect mechanism for IKEv2 is defined in <xref target="RFC5685"/>.  This mechanism
          allows security gateways to redirect clients to another gateway
          either during IKE SA establishment or after session setup.  If a
          client is connecting to a security gateway using TCP and
          then is redirected to another security gateway, the client
          needs to reset its transport selection.  In other words, the client
          MUST again try first UDP and then fall back to TCP while establishing
          a new IKE SA, regardless of the transport of the SA the redirect
          notification was received over (unless the client's configuration
          instructs it to instantly use TCP for the gateway it is redirected
          to).
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="IKEv2 Session Resumption" anchor="resumption" >
          <t>Session resumption for IKEv2 is defined in <xref target="RFC5723"/>.  Once an IKE SA is
          established, the server creates a resumption ticket where information
          about this SA is stored, and transfers this ticket to the client.
          The ticket may be later used to resume the IKE SA after it is deleted.
          In the event of resumption the client presents the ticket in a new
          exchange, called IKE_SESSION_RESUME.  Some parameters in the new SA
          are retrieved from the ticket and others are re-negotiated (more details
          are given in Section 5 of <xref target="RFC5723"/>).  
          </t>

          <t>Since network conditions may change while the client is incative,
          the fact that TCP encapsulation was used in an old SA SHOULD NOT affect which transport
          is used during session resumption. In other words, the transport should be 
          selected as if the IKE SA is being created from scratch.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="IKEv2 Protocol Support for High Availability" anchor="ha" >
          <t><xref target="RFC6311"/> defines a support for High Availability in IKEv2.
          In case of cluster failover, a new active node
          must immediately initiate a special INFORMATION exchange containing the
          IKEV2_MESSAGE_ID_SYNC notification, which instructs the client to
          skip some number of Message IDs that might not be synchronized yet
          between nodes at the time of failover.
          </t>

          <t>Synchronizing states when using TCP encapsulation is much harder than
          when using UDP; doing so requires access to TCP/IP stack internals, which is
          not always available from an IKE/IPsec implementation.  If a cluster
          implementation doesn't synchronize TCP states between nodes, then
          after failover event the new active node will not have any TCP
          connection with the client, so the node cannot initiate the
          INFORMATIONAL exchange as required by <xref target="RFC6311"/>.  Since the cluster
          usually acts as TCP Responder, the new active node cannot re-
          establish TCP connection, since only the TCP Originator can do it.
          For the client, the cluster failover event may remain
          undetected for long time if it has no IKE or ESP traffic to send.  Once
          the client sends an ESP or IKEv2 packet, the cluster node will reply
          with TCP RST and the client (as TCP Originator) will reestablish the TCP
          connection so that the node will be able to initiate the
          INFORMATIONAL exchange informing the client about the cluster
          failover.
          </t>

          <t>This document makes the following recommendation: if support for High
          Availability in IKEv2 is negotiated and TCP transport is used,
		  a client that is a TCP Originator SHOULD periodically send
          IKEv2 messages (e.g. by initiating liveness check exchange) whenever
          there is no IKEv2 or ESP traffic.  This differs from the
          recommendations given in Section 2.4 of <xref target="RFC7296"/> in the following:
          the liveness check should be periodically performed even if the
          client has nothing to send over ESP.  The frequency of sending such
          messages should be high enough to allow quick detection and restoring
          of broken TCP connection.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="IKEv2 Fragmentation" anchor="sect-9">
          <t>IKE message fragmentation <xref target="RFC7383"/> is not required when using TCP
          encapsulation, since a TCP stream already handles the fragmentation
          of its contents across packets.  Since fragmentation is redundant in
          this case, implementations might choose to not negotiate IKE
          fragmentation.  Even if fragmentation is negotiated, an
          implementation SHOULD NOT send fragments when going over a TCP
          connection, although it MUST support receiving fragments.
          </t>

          <t>If an implementation supports both MOBIKE and IKE fragmentation, it
          SHOULD negotiate IKE fragmentation over a TCP-encapsulated session in
          case the session switches to UDP encapsulation on another network.
          </t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="Middlebox Considerations" anchor="sect-11">
        <t>Many security networking devices, such as firewalls or intrusion
        prevention systems, network optimization/acceleration devices, and
        NAT devices, keep the state of sessions that traverse through them.
        </t>

        <t>These devices commonly track the transport-layer and/or application-
        layer data to drop traffic that is anomalous or malicious in nature.
        While many of these devices will be more likely to pass
        TCP-encapsulated traffic as opposed to UDP-encapsulated traffic, some
        may still block or interfere with TCP-encapsulated IKE and IPsec
        traffic.
        </t>

        <t>A network device that monitors the transport layer will track the
        state of TCP sessions, such as TCP sequence numbers.  TCP
        encapsulation of IKE should therefore use standard TCP behaviors to
        avoid being dropped by middleboxes.
        </t>
      </section>

      <section title="Performance Considerations" anchor="perf">
        <t>Several aspects of TCP encapsulation for IKE and IPsec packets may
        negatively impact the performance of connections within a tunnel-mode
        IPsec SA.  Implementations should be aware of these performance
        impacts and take these into consideration when determining when to
        use TCP encapsulation.  Implementations SHOULD favor using direct ESP
        or UDP encapsulation over TCP encapsulation whenever possible.
        </t>

        <section title="TCP-in-TCP" anchor="perf.1">
          <t>If the outer connection between IKE peers is over TCP, inner TCP
          connections may suffer negative effects from using TCP within TCP.
          Running TCP within TCP is discouraged, since the TCP algorithms
          generally assume that they are running over an unreliable datagram
          layer.
          </t>

          <t>If the outer (tunnel) TCP connection experiences packet loss, this
          loss will be hidden from any inner TCP connections, since the outer
          connection will retransmit to account for the losses.  Since the
          outer TCP connection will deliver the inner messages in order, any
          messages after a lost packet may have to wait until the loss is
          recovered.  This means that loss on the outer connection will be
          interpreted only as delay by inner connections.  The burstiness of
          inner traffic can increase, since a large number of inner packets may
          be delivered across the tunnel at once.  The inner TCP connection may
          interpret a long period of delay as a transmission problem,
          triggering a retransmission timeout, which will cause spurious
          retransmissions.  The sending rate of the inner connection may be
          unnecessarily reduced if the retransmissions are not detected as
          spurious in time.
          </t>

          <t>The inner TCP connection's round-trip-time estimation will be
          affected by the burstiness of the outer TCP connection if there are
          long delays when packets are retransmitted by the outer TCP
          connection.  This will make the congestion control loop of the inner
          TCP traffic less reactive, potentially permanently leading to a lower
          sending rate than the outer TCP would allow for.
          </t>

          <t>TCP-in-TCP can also lead to increased buffering, or bufferbloat.
          This can occur when the window size of the outer TCP connection is
          reduced and becomes smaller than the window sizes of the inner TCP
          connections.  This can lead to packets backing up in the outer TCP
          connection's send buffers.  In order to limit this effect, the outer
          TCP connection should have limits on its send buffer size and on the
          rate at which it reduces its window size.
          </t>

          <t>Note that any negative effects will be shared between all flows going
          through the outer TCP connection.  This is of particular concern for
          any latency-sensitive or real-time applications using the tunnel.  If
          such traffic is using a TCP-encapsulated IPsec connection, it is
          recommended that the number of inner connections sharing the tunnel
          be limited as much as possible.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="Added Reliability for Unreliable Protocols" anchor="perf.2">
          <t>Since ESP is an unreliable protocol, transmitting ESP packets over a
          TCP connection will change the fundamental behavior of the packets.
          Some application-level protocols that prefer packet loss to delay
          (such as Voice over IP or other real-time protocols) may be
          negatively impacted if their packets are retransmitted by the TCP
          connection due to packet loss.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="Quality-of-Service Markings" anchor="perf.3">
          <t>Quality-of-Service (QoS) markings, such as the Differentiated
          Services Code Point (DSCP) and Traffic Class, should be used with
          care on TCP connections used for encapsulation.  Individual packets
          SHOULD NOT use different markings than the rest of the connection,
          since packets with different priorities may be routed differently and
          cause unnecessary delays in the connection.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="Maximum Segment Size" anchor="perf.4">
          <t>A TCP connection used for IKE encapsulation SHOULD negotiate its MSS
          in order to avoid unnecessary fragmentation of packets.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="Tunneling ECN in TCP" anchor="perf.5">
          <t>Since there is not a one-to-one relationship between outer IP packets
          and inner ESP/IP messages when using TCP encapsulation, the markings
          for Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) <xref target="RFC3168"/> cannot be simply
          mapped.  However, any ECN Congestion Experienced (CE) marking on
          inner headers should be preserved through the tunnel.
          </t>

          <t>Implementations SHOULD follow the ECN compatibility mode for tunnel
          ingress as described in <xref target="RFC6040"/>.  In compatibility mode, the outer
          tunnel TCP connection marks its packet headers as not ECN-capable.
          If upon egress, the arriving outer header is marked with CE, the
          implementation will drop the inner packet, since there is not a
          distinct inner packet header onto which to translate the ECN
          markings.
          </t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="Security Considerations" anchor="sect-13">
        <t>IKE Responders that support TCP encapsulation may become vulnerable
        to new Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks that are specific to TCP, such
        as SYN-flooding attacks.  TCP Responders should be aware of this
        additional attack surface.
        </t>
        
        <t>TCP Responders should be careful to ensure that (1) the stream prefix
        "IKETCP" uniquely identifies incoming streams as streams that use the
        TCP encapsulation protocol and (2) they are not running any other
        protocols on the same listening port (to avoid potential conflicts).
        </t>
        
        <t>Attackers may be able to disrupt the TCP connection by sending
        spurious TCP Reset packets.  Therefore, implementations SHOULD make
        sure that IKE session state persists even if the underlying TCP
        connection is torn down.
        </t>
        
        <t>If MOBIKE is being used, all of the security considerations outlined
        for MOBIKE apply <xref target="RFC4555"/>.
        </t>
        
        <t>Similarly to MOBIKE, TCP encapsulation requires a TCP Responder to
        handle changes to source address and port due to network or
        connection disruption.  The successful delivery of valid IKE or ESP
        messages over a new TCP connection is used by the TCP Responder to
        determine where to send subsequent responses.  If an attacker is able
        to send packets on a new TCP connection that pass the validation
        checks of the TCP Responder, it can influence which path future
        packets will take.  For this reason, the validation of messages on
        the TCP Responder must include decryption, authentication, and replay
        checks.
        </t>

      </section>

      <section title="IANA Considerations" anchor="sect-14">
        <t>TCP port 4500 is already allocated to IPsec for NAT traversal.  This
        port SHOULD be used for TCP-encapsulated IKE and ESP as described in
        this document.
        </t>
        
        <t>This document updates the reference for TCP port 4500 from RFC 8229 to itself:
        </t>
        
        <figure anchor="f-4"><artwork><![CDATA[
          Keyword       Decimal    Description           Reference
          -----------   --------   -------------------   ---------
          ipsec-nat-t   4500/tcp   IPsec NAT-Traversal   [RFCXXXX]
        ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </section>
    </middle>

    <back>
        <references title='Normative References'>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3948.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4301.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4303.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6040.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7296.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8019.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml" ?>
        </references>

        <references title='Informative References'>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-ipsecme-ike-tcp.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1122.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2817.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3168.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4555.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4621.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4987.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5246.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5685.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5723.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6311.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6520.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6528.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7383.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8229.xml" ?>
            <?rfc include="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8446.xml" ?>
        </references>

        <section title="Using TCP Encapsulation with TLS" anchor="sect-a">
          <t>This section provides recommendations on how to use TLS in addition
          to TCP encapsulation.
          </t>
          
          <t>When using TCP encapsulation, implementations may choose to use TLS 1.2
          <xref target="RFC5246"/> or TLS 1.3 <xref target="RFC8446"/> on the TCP connection 
          to be able to traverse middleboxes, which may otherwise block the traffic.
          </t>
          
          <t>If a web proxy is applied to the ports used for the TCP connection
          and TLS is being used, the TCP Originator can send an HTTP CONNECT
          message to establish an SA through the proxy <xref target="RFC2817"/>.
          </t>
          
          <t>The use of TLS should be configurable on the peers, and may be used
          as the default when using TCP encapsulation or may be used as a
          fallback when basic TCP encapsulation fails.  The TCP Responder may
          expect to read encapsulated IKE and ESP packets directly from the TCP
          connection, or it may expect to read them from a stream of TLS data
          packets.  The TCP Originator should be pre-configured to use TLS
          or not when communicating with a given port on the TCP Responder.
          </t>
          
          <t>When new TCP connections are re-established due to a broken
          connection, TLS must be renegotiated.  TLS session resumption is
          recommended to improve efficiency in this case.
          </t>
          
          <t>The security of the IKE session is entirely derived from the IKE
          negotiation and key establishment and not from the TLS session (which
          in this context is only used for encapsulation purposes); therefore,
          when TLS is used on the TCP connection, both the TCP Originator and
          the TCP Responder SHOULD allow the NULL cipher to be selected for
          performance reasons. Note, that TLS 1.3 only supports AEAD algorithms
          and at the time of writing this document there was no recommended cipher suite 
          for TLS 1.3 with the NULL cipher.
          </t>
          
          <t>Implementations should be aware that the use of TLS introduces
          another layer of overhead requiring more bytes to transmit a given
          IKE and IPsec packet.  For this reason, direct ESP, UDP
          encapsulation, or TCP encapsulation without TLS should be preferred
          in situations in which TLS is not required in order to traverse
          middleboxes.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="Example Exchanges of TCP Encapsulation with TLS 1.3" anchor="tls">
          <section title="Establishing an IKE Session" anchor="sect-b.1">
            <figure anchor="f-5"><artwork><![CDATA[
                Client                              Server
              ----------                          ----------
  1)  --------------------  TCP Connection  -------------------
      (IP_I:Port_I  -> IP_R:Port_R)
      TcpSyn                    ---------->
                                <----------          TcpSyn,Ack
      TcpAck                    ---------->

  2)  ---------------------  TLS Session  ---------------------
      ClientHello               ---------->
                                                    ServerHello
                                          {EncryptedExtensions}
                                                 {Certificate*}
                                           {CertificateVerify*}
                                <----------          {Finished}
      {Finished}                ---------->

  3)  ---------------------- Stream Prefix --------------------
      "IKETCP"                  ---------->
  4)  ----------------------- IKE Session ---------------------
      Length + Non-ESP Marker   ---------->
      IKE_SA_INIT
      HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni,
      [N(NAT_DETECTION_*_IP)]
                                <------ Length + Non-ESP Marker
                                                    IKE_SA_INIT
                                            HDR, SAr1, KEr, Nr,
                                        [N(NAT_DETECTION_*_IP)]
      Length + Non-ESP Marker   ---------->
      first IKE_AUTH
      HDR, SK {IDi, [CERTREQ]
      CP(CFG_REQUEST), IDr,
      SAi2, TSi, TSr, ...}
                                <------ Length + Non-ESP Marker
                                                 first IKE_AUTH
                                    HDR, SK {IDr, [CERT], AUTH,
                                           EAP, SAr2, TSi, TSr}

      Length + Non-ESP Marker   ---------->
      IKE_AUTH + EAP
      repeat 1..N times
                                <------ Length + Non-ESP Marker
                                                 IKE_AUTH + EAP
      Length + Non-ESP Marker   ---------->
      final IKE_AUTH
      HDR, SK {AUTH}
                                <------ Length + Non-ESP Marker
                                                 final IKE_AUTH
                                  HDR, SK {AUTH, CP(CFG_REPLY),
                                             SA, TSi, TSr, ...}
      -------------- IKE and IPsec SAs Established ------------
      Length + ESP Frame        ---------->
        ]]></artwork>
        	</figure>

            <t><list style="numbers">
               <t>The client establishes a TCP connection with the server on
               port 4500 or on an alternate pre-configured port that the server
               is listening on.
               </t>

              <t>If configured to use TLS, the client initiates a TLS handshake.
              During the TLS handshake, the server SHOULD NOT request the
              client's certificate, since authentication is handled as part of
              IKE negotiation.</t>
              
              <t>The client sends the stream prefix for TCP-encapsulated IKE
              (<xref target="sect-4"/>) traffic to signal the beginning of IKE negotiation.</t>
              
              <t>The client and server establish an IKE connection.  This example
              shows EAP-based authentication, although any authentication type
              may be used.</t>
              </list>
            </t>
          </section>

          <section title="Deleting an IKE Session" anchor="sect-b.2">
            <figure anchor="f-6"><artwork><![CDATA[
                Client                              Server
              ----------                          ----------
  1)  ----------------------- IKE Session ---------------------
      Length + Non-ESP Marker   ---------->
      INFORMATIONAL
      HDR, SK {[N,] [D,]
             [CP,] ...}
                                <------ Length + Non-ESP Marker
                                                  INFORMATIONAL
                                             HDR, SK {[N,] [D,]
                                                     [CP], ...}

  2)  ---------------------  TLS Session  ---------------------
      close_notify              ---------->
                                <----------        close_notify
  3)  --------------------  TCP Connection  -------------------
      TcpFin                    ---------->
                                <----------                 Ack
                                <----------              TcpFin
      Ack                       ---------->
      --------------------  IKE SA Deleted  -------------------
        ]]></artwork>
        	</figure>
            <t><list style="numbers">
              <t>The client and server exchange informational messages to notify
              IKE SA deletion.</t>
                
              <t>The client and server negotiate TLS session deletion using TLS
              CLOSE_NOTIFY.</t>
                
              <t>The TCP connection is torn down.</t>
                
              </list>
            </t>

            <t>The deletion of the IKE SA should lead to the disposal of the
            underlying TLS and TCP state.</t>
          </section>

          <section title="Re-establishing an IKE Session" anchor="sect-b.3">
            <figure anchor="f-7"><artwork><![CDATA[
                Client                              Server
              ----------                          ----------
  1)  --------------------  TCP Connection  -------------------
      (IP_I:Port_I  -> IP_R:Port_R)
      TcpSyn                    ---------->
                                <----------          TcpSyn,Ack
      TcpAck                    ---------->
  2)  ---------------------  TLS Session  ---------------------
      ClientHello               ---------->
                                                    ServerHello
                                          {EncryptedExtensions}
                                <----------          {Finished}
      {Finished}                ---------->
  3)  ---------------------- Stream Prefix --------------------
      "IKETCP"                  ---------->
  4)  <---------------------> IKE/ESP Flow <------------------>
        ]]></artwork>
        	</figure>
            <t><list style="numbers">
              <t>If a previous TCP connection was broken (for example, due to a
              TCP Reset), the client is responsible for re-initiating the TCP
              connection.  The TCP Originator's address and port (IP_I and
              Port_I) may be different from the previous connection's address
              and port.
              </t>
              
              <t>The client SHOULD attempt TLS session resumption if it
              has previously established a session with the server.
              </t>
              
              <t>After TCP and TLS are complete, the client sends the stream
              prefix for TCP-encapsulated IKE traffic (<xref target="sect-4"/>).
              </t>
              
              <t>The IKE and ESP packet flow can resume.  If MOBIKE is being used,
              the Initiator SHOULD send an UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES message.
              </t>

	        </list>
            </t>
          </section>

          <section title="Using MOBIKE between UDP and TCP Encapsulation" anchor="sect-b.4">
            <figure anchor="f-8"><artwork><![CDATA[
                  Client                              Server
                ----------                          ----------
      (IP_I1:UDP500 -> IP_R:UDP500)
  1)  ----------------- IKE_SA_INIT Exchange -----------------
      (IP_I1:UDP4500 -> IP_R:UDP4500)
      Non-ESP Marker           ----------->
      Initial IKE_AUTH
      HDR, SK { IDi, CERT, AUTH,
      CP(CFG_REQUEST),
      SAi2, TSi, TSr,
      N(MOBIKE_SUPPORTED) }
                               <-----------      Non-ESP Marker
                                               Initial IKE_AUTH
                                     HDR, SK { IDr, CERT, AUTH,
                                           EAP, SAr2, TSi, TSr,
                                          N(MOBIKE_SUPPORTED) }
      <------------------ IKE SA Establishment --------------->

  2)  ------------ MOBIKE Attempt on New Network --------------
      (IP_I2:UDP4500 -> IP_R:UDP4500)
      Non-ESP Marker           ----------->
      INFORMATIONAL
      HDR, SK { N(UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES),
      N(NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP),
      N(NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP) }

  3)  --------------------  TCP Connection  -------------------
      (IP_I2:Port_I -> IP_R:Port_R)
      TcpSyn                   ----------->
                               <-----------          TcpSyn,Ack
      TcpAck                   ----------->

  4)  ---------------------  TLS Session  ---------------------
      ClientHello               ---------->
                                                    ServerHello
                                          {EncryptedExtensions}
                                                 {Certificate*}
                                           {CertificateVerify*}
                                <----------          {Finished}
      {Finished}                ---------->

  5)  ---------------------- Stream Prefix --------------------
      "IKETCP"                  ---------->

  6)  ------------ Retransmit Message from step 2 -------------
      Length + Non-ESP Marker  ----------->
      INFORMATIONAL
      HDR, SK { N(UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES),
      N(NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP),
      N(NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP) }

                               <------- Length + Non-ESP Marker
                          HDR, SK { N(NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP),
                              N(NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP) }

  7)  ---- New Exchange with recalculated  NAT_DETECTION_* ----
      Length + Non-ESP Marker  ----------->
      INFORMATIONAL
      HDR, SK { N(UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES),
      N(NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP),
      N(NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP) }

                               <------- Length + Non-ESP Marker
                          HDR, SK { N(NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP),
                              N(NAT_DETECTION_DESTINATION_IP) }

  8)  <---------------------> IKE/ESP Flow <------------------>
        ]]></artwork>
        	</figure>
            <t><list style="numbers">
              <t>During the IKE_SA_INIT exchange, the client and server exchange
              MOBIKE_SUPPORTED notify payloads to indicate support for MOBIKE.
              </t>
              
              <t>The client changes its point of attachment to the network and
              receives a new IP address.  The client attempts to re-establish
              the IKE session using the UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES notify payload, but
              the server does not respond because the network blocks UDP
              traffic.
              </t>
              
              <t>The client brings up a TCP connection to the server in order to
              use TCP encapsulation.
              </t>
              
              <t>The client initiates a TLS handshake with the server.</t>
              
              <t>The client sends the stream prefix for TCP-encapsulated IKE
              traffic (<xref target="sect-4"/>).
              </t>
              
              <t>The client sends the UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES notify payload on the
              TCP-encapsulated connection.  Note that this IKE message is the
              same as the one sent over UDP in step 2; it should have the same
              message ID and contents.
              </t>
              
              <t>Once the client receives a response on the
              TCP-encapsulated connection, it immediately starts a new INFORMATIONAL
              exchange with an UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES notify payload and a recalculated 
              NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP notify payload in order to get correct information about the presence 
              of NATs.
              </t>

              <t>The IKE and ESP packet flow can resume.</t>
	        </list>
            </t>

          </section>

        </section>

        <section title="Acknowledgments" numbered="no" anchor="acknowledgments">
          <t>Thanks to the original authors of RFC 8229, Tommy Pauly, Samy Touati, and Ravi Mantha.
          Since this document updates and obsoletes RFC 8229, most of its text was borrowed
          from the original document.
          </t>

          <t>The following people provided valuable feedback and advices while preparing RFC8229:
          Stuart Cheshire, Delziel Fernandes, Yoav Nir, Christoph Paasch, Yaron
          Sheffer, David Schinazi, Graham Bartlett, Byju Pularikkal, March Wu,
          Kingwel Xie, Valery Smyslov, Jun Hu, and Tero Kivinen.  Special
          thanks to Eric Kinnear for his implementation work.
          </t>

          <t>The authors would like to thank Tero Kivinen and Paul Wouters for their
          valuable comments while preparing this document.
          </t>
        </section>
    </back>
</rfc>


